Corporate Advocacy Program: The best way to manage and repair your business reputation. Hiding negative complaints is only a Band-Aid. Consumers want to see how businesses take care of business. All businesses will get complaints. How those businesses take care of those complaints is what separates good businesses from bad businesses.

April 16, 2006 5:51 P.M. After patiently waiting in line for over 30 minutes to check out,I went three feet to exit the store and security asked to see my receipt. I replied, "No, not today." He then grabbed two 12 foot boards off my cart and proceeded to tell me he needed to see my receipt.

I then asked him if he was detaining me for shoplifting. He responded, "No sir, I need to see your receipt." I took my lumber from him and put it back and my cart. I responded, "I already told you - it's not going to happen."

I proceeded into the parking lot, and he grabbed the lumber again. I told him to call the police. I informed him that I would have him arrested for detaining me against my will and theft of my property.

He motioned for back-up. My girlfriend and I were repeated harrassed, threatened,and verbal abused as we continued to walk to our vehicle by one of the 5 security guards that were now following us. He called me a "punk-*&* *&*&", "mother-*&*&*" etc. He also told me to go back to my low paying job at Burger King.

I continually told him to call the police to settle the matter. They surrounded us at my truck in the parking lot and continued the harrassment and tried to incite me to begin a physical fight them.

An older security guard took the lumber from the security guard who was reponsible for most of the abuse and gave it back to me. The others continued to make obscene gestures as we drove away.

I called the store manager when I got home. He did not ask for my name or number. He told me their actions were completely wrong and said he would take care of it. I have no way to know if anything was actually done.

I also called the main office and they informed me it would take 7-10 days to repond.

On 4/19 I called the security company that Home Depot employs. He imformed me that their actions were wrong and the extemely vocal person was termined the following day.

Unfortunately the report that was submitted to the security company by the involved officers was falsified. They reported only three officers were on the scene and that I was illegally parked in an unloading zone. I was ,however, parked in a legal parking space in the middle of the parking lot.

I am now waiting for a response from the Home Depot which I do not believe will ever come forth.

Corporate Advocacy Program: The best way to manage and repair your business reputation. Hiding negative complaints is only a Band-Aid. Consumers want to see how businesses take care of business. All businesses will get complaints. How those businesses take care of those complaints is what separates good businesses from bad businesses.

AUTHOR: Kathy - (U.S.A.)

SUBMITTED: Tuesday, July 24, 2007

POSTED: Tuesday, July 24, 2007

I agree fully. I understand that I as a law abiding citizen, it would be easier to show my reciept, but why do I have to? If they believe that I have stolen something, call the police and rewind the surveillence tape. If not, "Have a Nice Day". I refuse to give up my rights as an American to make it easier and more convient for Home Depot, when I just stood in line for over 30 minutes. Home Depot certainly does not make things easier for their customers.

To the Home Depot employee who stated that you have a right to search me because I am on your property- do you privately own The Home Depot? I thought it was a publically traded company? And please learn to spell. You just made yourself look uneducated, and put other Home Depot employees in a bad light.

AUTHOR: John - (U.S.A.)

First of all drop the gun issue; he was just venting his anger. Nobody had a gun pulled so drop it.

When you exchange money for an item, it becomes your property. IT'S YOURS, THERE'S NO LAW STATING YOU HAVE TO SHOW A RECEIPT. That guard might as well have grabbed your purse/wallet from your hand. He was in the wrong, that's why he got fired.

Remember, it's innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. You don't have to PROVE you bought it, they have to PROVE you stole it.

In the words of some idiot who posted way up there... "You people amaze me"... yes you people amaze me. You're the same people who don't mind your phones being tapped "since you're not doing anything illegal"...

THOSE WHO GIVE UP LIBERTY FOR A FALSE SENSE OF SECURITY DESERVE NEITHER. Grow a pair and act like an American already; you're making us look bad.

AUTHOR: Dale - (U.S.A.)

SUBMITTED: Tuesday, April 17, 2007

POSTED: Tuesday, April 17, 2007

Hey, Steve in FL. Are you allowed to carry a weapon, licensed or not, into a Home Depot in FL? I travel extensively throughout the US including FL and have to go into Home Depot from time to time. I notice a sign that is on their front doors in very plain sight "No firearms allowed" Similar to those in banks, Wal-Marts, schools, etc. In OK this means licensed or not. Only police officers and such have authority to bypass these signs "packing".

Though Kyle could have showed his receipt to the guard and been done with it, his emotional state was already inflamed by the discourtious manner of HD making him wait in line for so long. We've all been there, done that. My sympathies pal! The guard should not have hightened this situation! I,m sure he was only shoving his imaginary authoriy down someones throat, and poor Kyle was the target this hired punk was looking for. I really doubt this was the first time this thug had done this, or worse.

Once you have your receipt, your deal with the store is done. They have the right to request but no right to demand a receipt. At that point it is clear that there is an unspoken accusation of "thief". Detaining and surrounding you and taking items from you is no different than reaching into your pocket or purse and searching you personally. Just what are all those security cameras for anyway?

I believe these "receipt cops" are there only for visual effect to slow punk thieves and kids on a dare. Many times there is a long line waiting on them before finally exiting the store!

It's rediculous to wait half an hour to check out, knowing that there are enough employees throughout the store to attend other registers, then wait again in another line to be checked for "honesty"

It sure sounds like Kyle might have a law suit for harrassement and/or unlawful detainment. Possibly even false accusation of theft or deffimation of character and public humiliation. Even though it wasn't stated, "thief" sounds most definitely implied. Good luck, Kyle.

Maybe next time you might think of that persons choice of profession, and giggle a bit as you "kindly" decline.

AUTHOR: Dale - (U.S.A.)

SUBMITTED: Tuesday, April 17, 2007

POSTED: Tuesday, April 17, 2007

Hey, Steve in FL. Are you allowed to carry a weapon, licensed or not, into a Home Depot in FL? I travel extensively throughout the US including FL and have to go into Home Depot from time to time. I notice a sign that is on their front doors in very plain sight "No firearms allowed" Similar to those in banks, Wal-Marts, schools, etc. In OK this means licensed or not. Only police officers and such have authority to bypass these signs "packing".

Though Kyle could have showed his receipt to the guard and been done with it, his emotional state was already inflamed by the discourtious manner of HD making him wait in line for so long. We've all been there, done that. My sympathies pal! The guard should not have hightened this situation! I,m sure he was only shoving his imaginary authoriy down someones throat, and poor Kyle was the target this hired punk was looking for. I really doubt this was the first time this thug had done this, or worse.

Once you have your receipt, your deal with the store is done. They have the right to request but no right to demand a receipt. At that point it is clear that there is an unspoken accusation of "thief". Detaining and surrounding you and taking items from you is no different than reaching into your pocket or purse and searching you personally. Just what are all those security cameras for anyway?

I believe these "receipt cops" are there only for visual effect to slow punk thieves and kids on a dare. Many times there is a long line waiting on them before finally exiting the store!

It's rediculous to wait half an hour to check out, knowing that there are enough employees throughout the store to attend other registers, then wait again in another line to be checked for "honesty"

It sure sounds like Kyle might have a law suit for harrassement and/or unlawful detainment. Possibly even false accusation of theft or deffimation of character and public humiliation. Even though it wasn't stated, "thief" sounds most definitely implied. Good luck, Kyle.

Maybe next time you might think of that persons choice of profession, and giggle a bit as you "kindly" decline.

AUTHOR: Dale - (U.S.A.)

SUBMITTED: Tuesday, April 17, 2007

POSTED: Tuesday, April 17, 2007

Hey, Steve in FL. Are you allowed to carry a weapon, licensed or not, into a Home Depot in FL? I travel extensively throughout the US including FL and have to go into Home Depot from time to time. I notice a sign that is on their front doors in very plain sight "No firearms allowed" Similar to those in banks, Wal-Marts, schools, etc. In OK this means licensed or not. Only police officers and such have authority to bypass these signs "packing".

Though Kyle could have showed his receipt to the guard and been done with it, his emotional state was already inflamed by the discourtious manner of HD making him wait in line for so long. We've all been there, done that. My sympathies pal! The guard should not have hightened this situation! I,m sure he was only shoving his imaginary authoriy down someones throat, and poor Kyle was the target this hired punk was looking for. I really doubt this was the first time this thug had done this, or worse.

Once you have your receipt, your deal with the store is done. They have the right to request but no right to demand a receipt. At that point it is clear that there is an unspoken accusation of "thief". Detaining and surrounding you and taking items from you is no different than reaching into your pocket or purse and searching you personally. Just what are all those security cameras for anyway?

I believe these "receipt cops" are there only for visual effect to slow punk thieves and kids on a dare. Many times there is a long line waiting on them before finally exiting the store!

It's rediculous to wait half an hour to check out, knowing that there are enough employees throughout the store to attend other registers, then wait again in another line to be checked for "honesty"

It sure sounds like Kyle might have a law suit for harrassement and/or unlawful detainment. Possibly even false accusation of theft or deffimation of character and public humiliation. Even though it wasn't stated, "thief" sounds most definitely implied. Good luck, Kyle.

Maybe next time you might think of that persons choice of profession, and giggle a bit as you "kindly" decline.

AUTHOR: Dale - (U.S.A.)

SUBMITTED: Tuesday, April 17, 2007

POSTED: Tuesday, April 17, 2007

Hey, Steve in FL. Are you allowed to carry a weapon, licensed or not, into a Home Depot in FL? I travel extensively throughout the US including FL and have to go into Home Depot from time to time. I notice a sign that is on their front doors in very plain sight "No firearms allowed" Similar to those in banks, Wal-Marts, schools, etc. In OK this means licensed or not. Only police officers and such have authority to bypass these signs "packing".

Though Kyle could have showed his receipt to the guard and been done with it, his emotional state was already inflamed by the discourtious manner of HD making him wait in line for so long. We've all been there, done that. My sympathies pal! The guard should not have hightened this situation! I,m sure he was only shoving his imaginary authoriy down someones throat, and poor Kyle was the target this hired punk was looking for. I really doubt this was the first time this thug had done this, or worse.

Once you have your receipt, your deal with the store is done. They have the right to request but no right to demand a receipt. At that point it is clear that there is an unspoken accusation of "thief". Detaining and surrounding you and taking items from you is no different than reaching into your pocket or purse and searching you personally. Just what are all those security cameras for anyway?

I believe these "receipt cops" are there only for visual effect to slow punk thieves and kids on a dare. Many times there is a long line waiting on them before finally exiting the store!

It's rediculous to wait half an hour to check out, knowing that there are enough employees throughout the store to attend other registers, then wait again in another line to be checked for "honesty"

It sure sounds like Kyle might have a law suit for harrassement and/or unlawful detainment. Possibly even false accusation of theft or deffimation of character and public humiliation. Even though it wasn't stated, "thief" sounds most definitely implied. Good luck, Kyle.

Maybe next time you might think of that persons choice of profession, and giggle a bit as you "kindly" decline.

AUTHOR: David - (U.S.A.)

People need to make choices. If your choice is to not SIMPLY show a receipt (like you have to EVERY time at Costco - YES it's a member store, but who cares?) then there you go.

Did the security guard act wrong? H**l yes!

BUT it all would have been avoided if the receipt was shown. A waste of energy and time.

I worked as security for a casino for long time - don't believe the guards can't touch you. If they believe that you've committed theft a citizens arrest can be made. I'm sure that's why nothing was done here. The guard knew Kyle did nothing wrong - he was in a bad mood and was given reason (invalid though it was) to act out.

A retail business is NOT a public venue. It is PRIVATELY owned. How do you think any shoplifters are detained OR that they have the ability to REFUSE service to anyone they choose? They don't NEED a reason.

Marc - I fully support your right to the Second Amendment, but you come off as a freakin' state militia crazy boy 100%.

Kyle - Sorry to hear about your experience and the security guard(s) was definitely in the wrong, but jeez man, just show the receipt next time and go on with your life. You'll have MUCH less stress (unlike Marc).

AUTHOR: Giorgian - (U.S.A.)

SUBMITTED: Tuesday, September 26, 2006

POSTED: Tuesday, September 26, 2006

Giving away our freedom! Parting with our rights! There is no provision of law anywhere in the US to make you show a receipt as a condition to leave the property. Soon, the Higher Courts will deal with this issue. There could be an exception with the membership warehouses, Costco, Sam's Club and the likes, and only if the provision is clearly state in the membership agreement. Frankly, I did not find any reference to conditional exit of a membership warehouse or any similar facility. Nevertheless, if you attempt to exit Costco without showing the receipt they will cancel your membership and issue a prorated refund of your dues.
Home Depot asking for receipt? I would walk. Is their property, their store, they have the duty of knowing if you paid for or not. I paid for, I have the proof, let them try to detain me. Here comes the Supreme Court case. We should settle this abuse once and for all!

AUTHOR: Steve - (U.S.A.)

SUBMITTED: Monday, September 25, 2006

POSTED: Monday, September 25, 2006

Marc,

You still don't get it because you are not READING and UNDERSTANDING what was written, and why.

>>
You wrote:
"There is no mistake in what you wanted to do. If the guy had touched you you would have shot him? Guys like you that would pull a gun over seeing a receipt is what gives the anti-gunners so much credibility".
>>

I clearly stated that it had nothing to do with the reciept at this point, and I would never display my firearm unless I was going to use it, lawfully. In Florida, the use of deadly force was authorized as soon as the Home Depot Security circled the cusomers at thier car in a threatening manner. They were outnumbered and threatened. Did you get that part?

The problem was not the reciept at this point. The problem was the damaged ego of the Home Depot thugs calling themselves security.

Keep in mind, security guards have absolutely no legal authority, and no one has to listen to them or do what they say. They are powerless.

As soon as the customer refused to show that reciept, the security guard could have called the police if he felt there was cause, or peacefully observed the customer going to the car and getting license#, etc.

However, these Home Depot security guards wanted to exert authority they do not legally have. That is the problem here, not the reciept.

AUTHOR: Steve - (U.S.A.)

SUBMITTED: Sunday, September 24, 2006

POSTED: Sunday, September 24, 2006

Mark-Mesa,

You actually think you have the right to put someone in handcuffs for not showing a reciept? I suggest you learn the law, and that you immediately get a good hospitalization plan and life insurance policy!

Newsflash! You have no legal authority at all! You can't legally touch anyone unless they are posing an iminent threat to someone. You are NOT law enforcement. You cant do squat. I would love for you to try to put me in handcuffs!

AUTHOR: Steve - (U.S.A.)

SUBMITTED: Sunday, September 24, 2006

POSTED: Sunday, September 24, 2006

Marc,

The Home Depot thugs and the illegal activity they participated in here is the issue. The reciept at this point is irrelevant. They followed the customers to thier car in a threatening manner. Under Florida Law, deadly force could have been used. LEGALLY. That is why we have these laws. To protect ourselves WITHOUT first being a victim.

Like I said, I have NEVER used or displayed my firearm in an illegal or unsafe manner, and I am not a hothead, nor would I draw and/or use my firearm because I'm "pissed off" as you put it.

Your stand on this is pointless, and makes no sense whatsoever. I guess you stand behind the illegal actions of the idiots calling themselves security at Home Depot? You are one of those people who think that everyone has to be compliant to anyone who assert authority, even if they do not have the legal authority.

That is the real issue here, security guards that think they are cops, and who think they actually have some authority. They don't have ANY authority. I would never take any orders from any rent a cop, and yes, if they surrounded me, threatened and/or grabbed me and I was outnumbered you can bet your a*s there would be a few less rent a cops in this world.

AUTHOR: Marc - (U.S.A.)

SUBMITTED: Saturday, September 23, 2006

POSTED: Saturday, September 23, 2006

That remark changed everything, because you were packing a firearm. There is no mistake in what you wanted to do. If the guy had touched you you would have shot him? Guys like you that would pull a gun over seeing a receipt is what gives the anti-gunners so much credibility. You're a prime example of the "gun-nut" mentality they talk about so much as they lobby to take away more rights, because one day you'll piss off a guy that's just like you, you'll both start blasting away, and some innocent bystander will catch the bullets.

AUTHOR: Steve - (U.S.A.)

SUBMITTED: Saturday, September 23, 2006

POSTED: Saturday, September 23, 2006

Marc,

You still need to read what was actually written. My comment had absolutely nothing to do with the reciept. That issue was over as soon as the customer said no. That uneducated store security thug IS NOT law enforcement. He cannot detain anyone unless that person poses physical danger to another person. PERIOD.

When they took the lumber from the customer, they broke the law. When they touched that customer, they commited a FELONY. That was assault.

When they circled around that customer at thier car, that was a percieved threat of bodily harm, and in some states considered false imprisonment.

If they were not accusing that customer of shoplifting, they had no cause of further action. It was simply an EGO thing on the part of the Home Depot thug who thought he actually had some legal authority.

You wrote>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Steve, We can't carry guns in Hawaii.

I would like to carry because there is a lot of violent non-white on white crime here. But because of people like you that say to store employees, "Is your job worth dying for?" over showing a slip of paper, I'm sure the anti-gun people will ensure we can never change the law because they can point at you and say, "See, another trigger-happy gun nut waiting for the opportunity to kill someone."

Marc - Makaha, Hawaii
U.S.A.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Asking him if his job was worth dying over was not regarding just showing a piece of paper. It was about the customers civil rights being violated, and a percieved threat of bodily harm.

I served this country for 10 years total through 2 periods of war 11 years apart. I have the absolute right to my opinion, as I have fought for our individual rights.

If you don't like Hawaii law on gun ownership and carry, you have the right to propose legislation to change it. You have those laws because you voted in your lawmakers who made them. So why are you complaining about me?

FYI - I have NEVER brandished my firearm, or even displayed it in an illegal manner. I have been licensed to carry for more than 12 years, without incident. However, I will not be a victim.

AUTHOR: Steve - (U.S.A.)

SUBMITTED: Saturday, September 23, 2006

POSTED: Saturday, September 23, 2006

Marc,

You still need to read what was actually written. My comment had absolutely nothing to do with the reciept. That issue was over as soon as the customer said no. That uneducated store security thug IS NOT law enforcement. He cannot detain anyone unless that person poses physical danger to another person. PERIOD.

When they took the lumber from the customer, they broke the law. When they touched that customer, they commited a FELONY. That was assault.

When they circled around that customer at thier car, that was a percieved threat of bodily harm, and in some states considered false imprisonment.

If they were not accusing that customer of shoplifting, they had no cause of further action. It was simply an EGO thing on the part of the Home Depot thug who thought he actually had some legal authority.

You wrote>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Steve, We can't carry guns in Hawaii.

I would like to carry because there is a lot of violent non-white on white crime here. But because of people like you that say to store employees, "Is your job worth dying for?" over showing a slip of paper, I'm sure the anti-gun people will ensure we can never change the law because they can point at you and say, "See, another trigger-happy gun nut waiting for the opportunity to kill someone."

Marc - Makaha, Hawaii
U.S.A.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Asking him if his job was worth dying over was not regarding just showing a piece of paper. It was about the customers civil rights being violated, and a percieved threat of bodily harm.

I served this country for 10 years total through 2 periods of war 11 years apart. I have the absolute right to my opinion, as I have fought for our individual rights.

If you don't like Hawaii law on gun ownership and carry, you have the right to propose legislation to change it. You have those laws because you voted in your lawmakers who made them. So why are you complaining about me?

FYI - I have NEVER brandished my firearm, or even displayed it in an illegal manner. I have been licensed to carry for more than 12 years, without incident. However, I will not be a victim.

AUTHOR: Marc - (U.S.A.)

SUBMITTED: Thursday, September 21, 2006

POSTED: Thursday, September 21, 2006

SO HOME DEPOT DOES NOT CONTRACT OUT SECURITY... THEY USED TO IN THE 80'S BUT SINCE 84' ALL LP'S ARE HIGHER FROM WITHIN. YES THE CAN CHECK UR RECEIPT, GUESS WHOS PROPERTY YOU ARE ON... ITS NOT UNLAWFUL SEARCH BECAUSE THEY HAD PROOF. GUESS WHAT THERE ARE ONLY ALLOWED TWO LP'S PER STORE. ALSO THE NEW FLORIDA LAW STATES IF YOU ARE BEING ATTACKED. SO IF SOMEONE HITS YOU OR GRABS YOU... IF YOU WOULD OF NEVER PULLED A RECEIPT I WOULD OF PULLED U INTO MY OFFICE IN HAND CUFFS.

AUTHOR: Marc - (U.S.A.)

SUBMITTED: Thursday, September 21, 2006

POSTED: Thursday, September 21, 2006

SO HOME DEPOT DOES NOT CONTRACT OUT SECURITY... THEY USED TO IN THE 80'S BUT SINCE 84' ALL LP'S ARE HIGHER FROM WITHIN. YES THE CAN CHECK UR RECEIPT, GUESS WHOS PROPERTY YOU ARE ON... ITS NOT UNLAWFUL SEARCH BECAUSE THEY HAD PROOF. GUESS WHAT THERE ARE ONLY ALLOWED TWO LP'S PER STORE. ALSO THE NEW FLORIDA LAW STATES IF YOU ARE BEING ATTACKED. SO IF SOMEONE HITS YOU OR GRABS YOU... IF YOU WOULD OF NEVER PULLED A RECEIPT I WOULD OF PULLED U INTO MY OFFICE IN HAND CUFFS.

AUTHOR: Marc - (U.S.A.)

SUBMITTED: Thursday, September 21, 2006

POSTED: Thursday, September 21, 2006

SO HOME DEPOT DOES NOT CONTRACT OUT SECURITY... THEY USED TO IN THE 80'S BUT SINCE 84' ALL LP'S ARE HIGHER FROM WITHIN. YES THE CAN CHECK UR RECEIPT, GUESS WHOS PROPERTY YOU ARE ON... ITS NOT UNLAWFUL SEARCH BECAUSE THEY HAD PROOF. GUESS WHAT THERE ARE ONLY ALLOWED TWO LP'S PER STORE. ALSO THE NEW FLORIDA LAW STATES IF YOU ARE BEING ATTACKED. SO IF SOMEONE HITS YOU OR GRABS YOU... IF YOU WOULD OF NEVER PULLED A RECEIPT I WOULD OF PULLED U INTO MY OFFICE IN HAND CUFFS.

AUTHOR: Marc - (U.S.A.)

SUBMITTED: Thursday, September 21, 2006

POSTED: Thursday, September 21, 2006

SO HOME DEPOT DOES NOT CONTRACT OUT SECURITY... THEY USED TO IN THE 80'S BUT SINCE 84' ALL LP'S ARE HIGHER FROM WITHIN. YES THE CAN CHECK UR RECEIPT, GUESS WHOS PROPERTY YOU ARE ON... ITS NOT UNLAWFUL SEARCH BECAUSE THEY HAD PROOF. GUESS WHAT THERE ARE ONLY ALLOWED TWO LP'S PER STORE. ALSO THE NEW FLORIDA LAW STATES IF YOU ARE BEING ATTACKED. SO IF SOMEONE HITS YOU OR GRABS YOU... IF YOU WOULD OF NEVER PULLED A RECEIPT I WOULD OF PULLED U INTO MY OFFICE IN HAND CUFFS.

AUTHOR: Sherri - (U.S.A.)

SUBMITTED: Monday, June 12, 2006

POSTED: Monday, June 12, 2006

Then you are likely using unlicensed security, as the BSIS is quite clear about not licensing felons. Per my husband, if a felony was more than 20 years ago and was non-violent, POSSIBLY it would be overlooked (if not in the NCIS system), but the bureau would likely still exclude. He has known applicants to be hired on a temporary permit and have their temp licenses revoked and placed on the denial list when their DOJ/FBI check came back. It is actually a quicker process now because of LiveScan. Back when there were only fingerprint cards, it apparently took much longer. He had one officer under him convicted of misdemeanor bad check, forgot to report it and had his licensed revoked.

If you are using unlicensed security, you could be putting yourself in a precarious legal situation.

AUTHOR: Todd - (U.S.A.)

I believe you have been misinformed, true as a convicted felon you cannot be an armed security guard unless you have had your rights restored as I stated in my post.

You can be a non-armed security guard I believe this as I work (and have for years) for a residential facility that rehabilitates ex- cons currently on parole for these men finding a job can sometimes be difficult but when worst comes to worst they can always find a job with a private security company ( I would guess to at least 25 that I have known over the past six years doing so) I see one of our former residents working as a security guard every time I go to the local movie theater.

The pay with these companies's is generally low from minimum wage to slightly higher so I guess they have to take what they can get.

A statute that forbids a convicted felon from working as an unarmed security guard?(I am unaware of one and have not been informed by any of the numerous parole offices who we must notify of the clients employment, that they are unable to work such jobs.) if I had proof such as a statute number that they cannot under any circumstances hold such a job as unarmed security then I would have to assume we will then no longer allow our clients living on our property to take such jobs as they would be breaking the law.

We cannot enforce the hiring practices of the various security companies'.

Disclaimer: all statements in this post are to be considered strictly my opinions and nothing more. Any desires of an individual to research and/or posts of an individual in order to share or oppose my opinion are solely at their initiation and do not constitute my opinions.

AUTHOR: Aafes - (U.S.A.)

SUBMITTED: Sunday, June 11, 2006

POSTED: Sunday, June 11, 2006

There is an alternative for the retailer. They could simply use "security" tape. These are preglued, scored paper tape strips of varying colors (different color used daily) that can be applied to packages, boxes and large merchandise at the register and initialed by the cashier. If a customer tries to remove and "reuse" the tape for merchandise not purchased it tears into strips when being removed to prevent additional use.

The "door checker" simply needs to visually view the customer's packages as they leave to ensure the tape is present - alleviating the need to Open packages, view receipts etc.

To Steve in Florida. Great law! It would be nice to see more states institute laws such as this. In my opinion, one could certainly view an agressive, foul mouthed security guard as threatening to use deadly force if he/she retrieved a piece of lumber (a weapon) and continued to follow or otherwise intimidate a customer. I would love to see one of these "security" people take an agressive stance such as this, have a customer who is licensed to carry actually draw a weapon on them as they feel threatened. I believe two things would happen - the power hungry security guard would wet themselves and the police would laugh about it later.

To Oliver - Just one small caution. There are MANY off duty law enforcement officers moonlighting as security guards in retail stores. Be careful of your assumptions, being off duty does nothing to reduce their powers of arrest or detention although they would have to identify themselves as such.

AUTHOR: Marc - (U.S.A.)

SUBMITTED: Sunday, June 11, 2006

POSTED: Sunday, June 11, 2006

I would like to carry because there is a lot of violent non-white on white crime here. But because of people like you that say to store employees, "Is your job worth dying for?" over showing a slip of paper, I'm sure the anti-gun people will ensure we can never change the law because they can point at you and say, "See, another trigger-happy gun nut waiting for the opportunity to kill someone."

AUTHOR: Donette - (U.S.A.)

SUBMITTED: Sunday, June 11, 2006

POSTED: Sunday, June 11, 2006

First off, I want to say that the original poster is right that the security should not have taken property from him that was just purchased. When the security personnel took the merchandise, in some cases, this can be considered an agressive movement. The entire situation could have been handled better and in a more professional manner.

I would like to clear up one comment that was made by another poster earlier about security not having law enforcement authority.

Not all states have this policy and I do not know whether Florida is one or not. However, in the states that private security is controlled by Department of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS), like Virginia, I can tell you, being a former Compliance Agent for the Department of Criminal Justice Services, that armed private security were granted full police authority effective 1994. They are no longer refered to as guards per the DCJS regulations, but Officers. They have full arrest and detainment authority on their client's property just as standard police do. There was (I do not know if this particular one is still in effect) also a regulation that required "off duty" armed security to "step in" should they witness a felony in progress. THIS IS NOT IN ALL STATES, but some states do have it.

In addition, "In House Security" (meaning un-armed only security employed directly through the company) have different regulations than Private Security. Again, this is in Virginia, so I do not know if Florida is under DCJS or not.

AUTHOR: Donette - (U.S.A.)

SUBMITTED: Sunday, June 11, 2006

POSTED: Sunday, June 11, 2006

First off, I want to say that the original poster is right that the security should not have taken property from him that was just purchased. When the security personnel took the merchandise, in some cases, this can be considered an agressive movement. The entire situation could have been handled better and in a more professional manner.

I would like to clear up one comment that was made by another poster earlier about security not having law enforcement authority.

Not all states have this policy and I do not know whether Florida is one or not. However, in the states that private security is controlled by Department of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS), like Virginia, I can tell you, being a former Compliance Agent for the Department of Criminal Justice Services, that armed private security were granted full police authority effective 1994. They are no longer refered to as guards per the DCJS regulations, but Officers. They have full arrest and detainment authority on their client's property just as standard police do. There was (I do not know if this particular one is still in effect) also a regulation that required "off duty" armed security to "step in" should they witness a felony in progress. THIS IS NOT IN ALL STATES, but some states do have it.

In addition, "In House Security" (meaning un-armed only security employed directly through the company) have different regulations than Private Security. Again, this is in Virginia, so I do not know if Florida is under DCJS or not.

AUTHOR: Donette - (U.S.A.)

SUBMITTED: Sunday, June 11, 2006

POSTED: Sunday, June 11, 2006

First off, I want to say that the original poster is right that the security should not have taken property from him that was just purchased. When the security personnel took the merchandise, in some cases, this can be considered an agressive movement. The entire situation could have been handled better and in a more professional manner.

I would like to clear up one comment that was made by another poster earlier about security not having law enforcement authority.

Not all states have this policy and I do not know whether Florida is one or not. However, in the states that private security is controlled by Department of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS), like Virginia, I can tell you, being a former Compliance Agent for the Department of Criminal Justice Services, that armed private security were granted full police authority effective 1994. They are no longer refered to as guards per the DCJS regulations, but Officers. They have full arrest and detainment authority on their client's property just as standard police do. There was (I do not know if this particular one is still in effect) also a regulation that required "off duty" armed security to "step in" should they witness a felony in progress. THIS IS NOT IN ALL STATES, but some states do have it.

In addition, "In House Security" (meaning un-armed only security employed directly through the company) have different regulations than Private Security. Again, this is in Virginia, so I do not know if Florida is under DCJS or not.

AUTHOR: Donette - (U.S.A.)

SUBMITTED: Sunday, June 11, 2006

POSTED: Sunday, June 11, 2006

First off, I want to say that the original poster is right that the security should not have taken property from him that was just purchased. When the security personnel took the merchandise, in some cases, this can be considered an agressive movement. The entire situation could have been handled better and in a more professional manner.

I would like to clear up one comment that was made by another poster earlier about security not having law enforcement authority.

Not all states have this policy and I do not know whether Florida is one or not. However, in the states that private security is controlled by Department of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS), like Virginia, I can tell you, being a former Compliance Agent for the Department of Criminal Justice Services, that armed private security were granted full police authority effective 1994. They are no longer refered to as guards per the DCJS regulations, but Officers. They have full arrest and detainment authority on their client's property just as standard police do. There was (I do not know if this particular one is still in effect) also a regulation that required "off duty" armed security to "step in" should they witness a felony in progress. THIS IS NOT IN ALL STATES, but some states do have it.

In addition, "In House Security" (meaning un-armed only security employed directly through the company) have different regulations than Private Security. Again, this is in Virginia, so I do not know if Florida is under DCJS or not.

AUTHOR: Sherri - (U.S.A.)

SUBMITTED: Sunday, June 11, 2006

POSTED: Sunday, June 11, 2006

Not saying all states, but most (California included) will NOT give a license (or guard card) to anyone convicted of a felony. Armed and unarmed. They will run a check with the state and US DOJ, including fingerprints. Any felonies are automatically considered disqualifying. Some misdemeanors are also disqualifying, though it is up to the issuing agency.

I am not in security, though my husband was in hospital security management before going with the Sheriff's Department.

AUTHOR: Todd - (U.S.A.)

SUBMITTED: Sunday, June 11, 2006

POSTED: Sunday, June 11, 2006

First off, when you purchase something it then belongs to you and is protected in the same rights as all personal property! Store policy will never supersede your State or Federal rights as a citizen. In order for Home Depot to enforce a policy that removes specific rights pertaining to search and seizure they would have to have you sign a written agreement consenting to the fact. (The same way many employers do within the signature sheets of their company policy)

So if you choose not to let them search you or your personal effects and they detain you it is unlawful detainment if they search you against your will it is assault being that (correct me if I am wrong) they are not duly sworn officers with jurisdiction throughout the municipal/local in which the store is located, in other words they only have the same rights afforded to all citizens in their response during the commission of a crime within their state or local. If they believe the have caught you in the commission of a crime against home depot then they may detain you, however they must then immediately call the local authorities to arrest and search you as they Home Depot do not have the power to do so. At all times you retain all of your constitutional rights e.g. the fifth amendment right to remain silent The police local/state/federal authorities must have due cause in order to search you, such as a eye witness to the fact that you have committed a crime (exercising your constitutional rights is Not probable cause) however if it turns out you do own everything in your possession they ( Home depot and/or Representatives contracted of.) will then face a lawsuit for violating your civil rights as well as possible criminal charges for providing false information to the police, if you choose to pursue it.

As far as parking in a restricted zone such as a yellow loading zone, it is a civil infraction and no citizen has the right to threaten, intimidate, or use physical force against you for such action. In doing so makes them guilty of a criminal offense.

Note: a large amount of non-armed security guards employed in the private security field are ex-cons (Meaning they have been to prison) and/or have felony criminal records.

Now on another note about my opinion of Home depots ongoing criminal actions:

At the corner of Union and Wilshire in Los Angeles, CA. Home Depot has a store near to which (At the edge of the parking lot) was built a building to be used as a break room/shelter for the numerous suspected undocumented aliens (illegal's) that contract themselves out to Home Depot customers.
The shelter is equipped with Satellite T.V., restroom, large industrial coffee urn, tables and so on, you get the point.

Now according to Federal law aiding and abetting undocumented aliens even in the form of reckless' (meaning in laymen's terms not necessarily knowing but should have had some idea) is a felony, furthermore if more than one person is involved in knowingly committing a crime it is conspiracy and the penalties become much greater.

Note: you can research that American citizens have been convicted for aiding/reckless aiding and abetting as well as reckless transportation (such as picking one up hitchhiking) in the court records of most any federal court along the Southern Boarder of the United States of America.

So:
1. Is Home depot guilty of aiding and abetting or reckless aiding and abetting of Undocumented Aliens?
2. Is the fact that an area has been made to provide rest, break, waiting constitute in some form Home depots employment of such individuals whether direct or indirect it is common place for such workers coming from said area or vicinity of, to go inside the store and give assistance in the purchase and/or loading of necessary parts and materials
3. If Home Depot is indirectly employing these individuals as a service to their customers should they not be obligated to obtain proper documentation as to their status to work in the U.S.A.?

Remember the brunt of the fault most likely falls on the consumers:

If you don't like their practices then boycott themif enough consumers do this how long do you think it will take before they accept we will not allow them to violate our constitutional rights and who the real economic power is and rewrite their policies and practices or be faced with company wide closures. Bottom line, they have all the political connections and power and they don't care what we think until it hurts their wallet.

Disclaimer: all statements in this post are to be considered strictly my opinions and nothing more. Any desires of an individual to research and/or posts of an individual in order to share or oppose my opinion are solely at their initiation and in no way constitute my opinions.

AUTHOR: Jesse - (U.S.A.)

The reason a person can be charged with Burglary is similiar to why a person can be charged with Armed Burglary when a person holds up a store with a weapon.

I can see and understand why Larceny can also play a role as well, however when I had shoplifters who so nicely said buzz off then ran away when they were caught and brought back to the store and were confirmed as the ones who ran away. The police officer would normally then tell them that are being arrested for burglary.

I hope this answers your question.

I have also copied and pasted a website page for anyone to view that will explain more about Retail Store Exit Bag procedures and Policy's. That will help many in here with their own and stores rights regarding this method of Loss Prevention. Of course their is more on this site and just an FYI I had to follow his rules in the field regarding all of the Loss Preventions rules. Here is the website page address

AUTHOR: Jesse - (U.S.A.)

SUBMITTED: Monday, April 24, 2006

POSTED: Monday, April 24, 2006

Unfortunately I beleive this is a case of improper training on the part of the Security Company.

First off you should of been explained that the reason you were asked to show your receipt is that the alarm that went off is an electronic inventory control system which does have other names but this is a good name to understand. When I stopped people when triggering the alarm I would usually ask them to please return to the cashier station because an item they purchased was not properly deactivated and that we needed their assistance in helping us with store inventory. 98% of the time people would understand and be more than happy to assist us and return to the cashier station.

Of course it could be taken care of at the door in your case with a receipt but the same approach should have been used.

Second when you said no. The Guard should have said thank you anyways have a good day. Mark down the incident and your description for future references. What was the big wrong doing is when the Guard personally took your item away from you. Even if they thought it was shoplifting they could of gotten your lisence plate number and called the police. And just an FYI if you are stopped again it is better to cooperate even if it is a pain in the butt. As nobody likes the humiliation or the time consumption of being pulled over by the police on suspicion of Burgarly.

From what I hear it is not a fun experiance, and yes that is what it would be a possibly burgarly investigation from the police. Many people do not know that once you take off or refuse to co operate with LP officers the charge goes from a simple shop lifting misdeamenor to a felony Burgarly. It's just something to think about when not cooperating with LP's even if you think it is rediculous and stupid.

Bottom line though is that in the end the customer or person has the right to tell you to buzz off and you are suppose to act professional and say thank you and have a nice day. Then do your job as you see fitting.

AUTHOR: Chayo - (U.S.A.)

SUBMITTED: Sunday, April 23, 2006

POSTED: Sunday, April 23, 2006

Similar Story

Rec #10130001887991
22 Letters Home Depot refuse to answer

To Home Depot and all interested parties;

I am a business owner who have a commercial account with Home Depot. I frequently shop at home depot because of convenience. On a monthly basis, I spend about $2,000 on warehouse and home furnishings. On January 19, 2006, I experienced what I would call racism at the Home Depot located at 1151 W. Lugonia Avenue, Redlands CA. 92374.

My intentions on entering the store were to purchase several screen doors, an AC unit and other items, then rent a truck from Home Depot to deliver these items to my business. I went to checkout to purchase the screen doors, along with other items, then afterwards was told by an store associate that it was too late in the evening to rent the truck. The female store associate was not helpful in any way. She refused to help me ring up an air conditioner that I had problems scanning. She approached me to inform me that I had taken off the wrong bar code to have scanned but rather than help me find the correct barcode, she walked away to talk to another store associate.

I stood there in the contractors checkout line, wondering if anyone was going to help me when another associate approached me. I finally purchased my items then walked out of the store to my car. I went back into the store after realizing that the screen doors would not fit in my vehicle and that I would have to return the doors. Management kept stalling, refusing to refund or reverse the charges on my commercial account. She kept asking when had I purchased these items and if I had the receipt. I informed her that I had already given her the receipt and she pretended to look at the receipt. After arguing for several minutes, she credited my account and I again, walked to my car. A few minutes later, two police officers approached my car and asked me to verify the purchases I had made inside the store. They asked me to walk back to the store with them and show them the receipt of purchase.

This could have been nothing more than a misunderstanding, but I dont think that was the problem. I was humiliated and feel that my civil rights were violated because I am an Afro-American. Home Depot accused me of stealing, even though I had receipt of my purchases in black and white. Why was the police called? Was I profiled because of my braided hair and dark skin? I was treated as if I were a criminal and am looking for resolution in this matter. As CEO of Briggs & Lay Pro Incorporated, I demand that Home Depot corporation sincerely look into this matter. I have sent several letters concerning this matter but Home Depot refuses to return any of my phone calls or answer any of my letters. Please post your comments below .. others may contact this website to contact me.

AUTHOR: Ruth - (U.S.A.)

SUBMITTED: Saturday, April 22, 2006

POSTED: Saturday, April 22, 2006

You know what there was a big deal made on both parties,m it would have been far easier and less violent and embarrassing for you, to just show your receipt, i do not understand for the life of me, why people would rather fight employees than show a receipt, a store does have the right to check people do you realize how much places like Home Depot and others lose to shoplifters every year? It is just an asset protection if you owned your own business and you KNEW somebody was gonna steal, I bet you would be checking receipts too.

I think you overreacted, as did the security officers, a big deal about nothing.I wonder if your girlfriend was emabarrassed standing there with you arguing and making a scene about a receipt, just show it to them and be on your way, why try to prove a mute point, they aren't going to stop asking for receipts becuase you declined. I can only imagine what went on in that parking lot over a receipt!

AUTHOR: Robert - (U.S.A.)

There is a reason. Courts don't consider it theft if you haven't left.

Leaving the premises with the stolen items is what makes you a shoplifter(thief). I can wander around all day putting stuff in my pockets. If I don't try to exit the store, I have stolen nothing.

TRYING to exit the store with the items in my possession would be "probable cause" and allow the LP guys to detain me.

The security guy got fired(if he really did) for any number of reasons. He may have just been reassigned. What possible reason would the security company have for telling you what amounts to personal information about their employees? I mean, besides THAT being illegal.

AUTHOR: Dallas - (U.S.A.)

SUBMITTED: Saturday, April 22, 2006

POSTED: Saturday, April 22, 2006

Steve, Thanks for pointing that out. I didn't notice before. Kyle, when they took the lumber that you paid for, that technically could have been coinsidered as Larceny. You could have called the cops, and maybe still can. Talk to your local police and see.

AUTHOR: Sherri - (U.S.A.)

SUBMITTED: Saturday, April 22, 2006

POSTED: Saturday, April 22, 2006

Kyle states that the security guard ASKED (not demanded) to see his receipt and he refused. Of course, if you flat our refuse, that will send a red flag up. I'm sure, unless Kyle was the only customer in the store at the time, that security did not have his eye on him throughout the checkout process. In the time it took the words, "no, not today" to come out of his mouth, the guy would have glanced at his receipt and Kyle would have been on his way. I can understand why Home Depot and other stores have this policy...many items they sell are too big to be bagged and are placed loose in a cart or flatcart. If everything was in Home Depot bag, it would be pretty apparent that it was paid for. In fact, our local store seems to only ask for receipts for unbagged items. So I don't see the argument that it is an illegal search.

Did the Security Officer overeact? Probably so. But it is obvious to me that Kyle got the ball rolling on this unfortunate incident because he was annoyed that he was in the checkout for so long. Had he just had his receipt in his hand, ready to show if asked, he likely would not have been even asked to show it.

Steve, I generally agree with much of what you say on the other boards, but I have to disagree with you on this one, my friend. I am also a veteran (USAF Flight Nurse) and I don't think the act of showing a receipt is a loss of freedom. Think about it a little..if they didn't have this policy, God only knows what large items would simply be pushed out the door, not paid for. If nothing else, the policy makes potential shoplifters think twice. Which is more palatable..taking 5 seconds to flash a receipt or paying higher prices due to rampant shoplifting?

AUTHOR: Robert - (U.S.A.)

One of the first combat lessons we learned in the Marine Corps was "picking your battles".

Sometimes, it is far more appropriate to bypass an enemy stronghold than it is to conduct a frontal assault.

You are on PRIVATE property when you are inside the store. The parking lot also belongs to the store, but police allow far more leeway to the merchant when you are still inside the store. Escalating the hostility over a RECIEPT is just plain idiotic. This goes for ALL parties involved. If you, as a customer, choose to be an a*s and demand to be left alone, instead of being a polite citizen and spending a whole 5 seconds showing the reciept, do not be surprised when something does not go your way. As I said, there will always be a faster draw than you. INSIDE the store, the merchant has the Courts on his side. OUTSIDE the store and it MAY be a different story, depending upon the situation. You fdo NOT have any right to not show your reciept while you are on PRIVATE property. Until such time as you leave the premises, the merchant still has the legal authority to protect his assets.

There is NO law in any state that says the merchant cannot detain you until the police arrive. Citizens in this country also have the authority to make a "citizen's arrest" until the police arrive. Neither the merchant, nor the citizen will be in any legal trouble for doing so. If you see someone assaulting a female, and go to her defense, you are doing two things. One, you are about to commit battery upon the woman's assailant. Two, you are going to detain him until the cops arrive. THAT is a "citizen's arrest". Both are legal, as long as the application of force is not excessive. Shooting someone is fine, reloading twice and filling the guy with holes is not. Get it?

COMMON SENSE tells you it's far wiser to show the reciept than spend your time throwing punches, or dodging bullets. Good manners tells you the same thing.

AUTHOR: Dallas - (U.S.A.)

SUBMITTED: Saturday, April 22, 2006

POSTED: Saturday, April 22, 2006

While it is probably true that Kyle was in a bad mood that day,it sounded more like the security guard was the jerk.Kyle had done nothing wrong,he was just getting his things so he could go home and rest,so he could get out of his bad mood.And,lo,and behold up turns a security guard with a bad attitude.I hate to say this,but technically,you don't have to show a security guard anything,reciept or otherwise.The only person that would require you to show it would be a duly sworn officer with a signed subpoena in hand.Kyle was within his rights.It is however more fast just to show it and go.But as far as I can see,no laws were broken.I believe reading Kyle's complaint that the guard was fired.Good going,Kyle.

AUTHOR: Dallas - (U.S.A.)

SUBMITTED: Saturday, April 22, 2006

POSTED: Saturday, April 22, 2006

While it is probably true that Kyle was in a bad mood that day,it sounded more like the security guard was the jerk.Kyle had done nothing wrong,he was just getting his things so he could go home and rest,so he could get out of his bad mood.And,lo,and behold up turns a security guard with a bad attitude.I hate to say this,but technically,you don't have to show a security guard anything,reciept or otherwise.The only person that would require you to show it would be a duly sworn officer with a signed subpoena in hand.Kyle was within his rights.It is however more fast just to show it and go.But as far as I can see,no laws were broken.I believe reading Kyle's complaint that the guard was fired.Good going,Kyle.

AUTHOR: Dallas - (U.S.A.)

SUBMITTED: Saturday, April 22, 2006

POSTED: Saturday, April 22, 2006

While it is probably true that Kyle was in a bad mood that day,it sounded more like the security guard was the jerk.Kyle had done nothing wrong,he was just getting his things so he could go home and rest,so he could get out of his bad mood.And,lo,and behold up turns a security guard with a bad attitude.I hate to say this,but technically,you don't have to show a security guard anything,reciept or otherwise.The only person that would require you to show it would be a duly sworn officer with a signed subpoena in hand.Kyle was within his rights.It is however more fast just to show it and go.But as far as I can see,no laws were broken.I believe reading Kyle's complaint that the guard was fired.Good going,Kyle.

AUTHOR: Dallas - (U.S.A.)

SUBMITTED: Saturday, April 22, 2006

POSTED: Saturday, April 22, 2006

While it is probably true that Kyle was in a bad mood that day,it sounded more like the security guard was the jerk.Kyle had done nothing wrong,he was just getting his things so he could go home and rest,so he could get out of his bad mood.And,lo,and behold up turns a security guard with a bad attitude.I hate to say this,but technically,you don't have to show a security guard anything,reciept or otherwise.The only person that would require you to show it would be a duly sworn officer with a signed subpoena in hand.Kyle was within his rights.It is however more fast just to show it and go.But as far as I can see,no laws were broken.I believe reading Kyle's complaint that the guard was fired.Good going,Kyle.

AUTHOR: Oliver - (U.S.A.)

SUBMITTED: Saturday, April 22, 2006

POSTED: Saturday, April 22, 2006

First of all, if a person is not a law enforcement officer the authority to stop and possibly search another person is very, very limited. Even in the case where someone witnesses the commission of a crime, a bystander or observer has no authority to detain the criminal. There are a few exceptions to this, such as kidnapping or a murder in progress, but that's as far as it goes.

Security guards are not law enforcement officers. They have no more authority than anyone else, although many would like to believe differently. They have no authority to demand to see a receipt, examine your packages or search your person. They could ask politely to see your receipt on your way out, but somehow I don't think that these security guards started the confrontation politely.

Compliance to these demands is up to the individual, however, when you comply you do nothing but reinforce the belief that everyone must kowtow to the uniformed security guard and his demands. You tend to erode your right to be secure in your personal effects, and that hurts everyone.

I hope you reported this to the police. They usually take a very dim view of having their authority usurped by a group of people pretending to be law enforcement officers.

I also tend to side with Steve from Florida. Steve isn't threatening anyone; He's stating a fact. Put your hands on him, try to rough him up and he'll shoot. Steve isn't alone in this, and I think he's being considerate in letting his attackers know what they are in for.

AUTHOR: Steve - (U.S.A.)

SUBMITTED: Saturday, April 22, 2006

POSTED: Saturday, April 22, 2006

OK, ONE more time....

The deadly force issue was specifically in reference to the uneducated thugs called security guards in the Home Depot parking lot. This was a viable threat AND deadly force could have been used under the provisions of FL law. Period.

AS far as the person quoting what I say to the door checker...You missed the part where I said IF THEY STEP UP ON ME...>>>>>
""I get right in their face with "what part of NO do you not understand"? **Then if they step up on me,*** I just inform them that I am prepared to use deadly force. Is your job worth dying for?"

I never said anything about having a shoot out in the Home Depot parking lot.

I never said anything about even pulling or showing my weapon.

When I pull my weapon for the first time, someone is already dead. There is no discussion.

Furthermore, I am not any kind of a hothead, nor do I look for problems. I simply do not accept the authority of those who have NONE.

As far as them having the right to search due to being on private property..That is BS.. AS soon as an item is paid for at the register and I have that reciept, both the goods and the reciept become MY private property. I CHOOSE who has access to them at that point. Not some door checker or rent-a-cop.

I always ask them if they are accusing me of shoplifting. If they say no, they have no justification to look at my reciept. If they say yes, now they have a lawsuit to deal with.

They lose either way. It is a bad policy that needs to be stopped.

The solution is to not put any merchandise between the register and the door. Have a controlled in flow and out flow. VERY SIMPLE solution.

AUTHOR: D - (U.S.A.)

SUBMITTED: Saturday, April 22, 2006

POSTED: Saturday, April 22, 2006

Kyle, let me just apologize for myself and anyone else who would like to join me in saying sorry, but we never said that YOU would harm anyone.
But we are commenting to Steve in Bradenton, Florida who said on 4/19/2006 at 9:07:54 PM "I am prepared to use deadly force. Is your job worth dying for?" that is who we are talking to. Sorry

AUTHOR: Gerry - (U.S.A.)

SUBMITTED: Saturday, April 22, 2006

POSTED: Saturday, April 22, 2006

I can see no reason for not showing your receipt! None! More and more stores are doing this now! Steve, your one of these people who want to make an issue of everything! Your kind are all experts in law as well! You claim they surrounded you and cursed you? I bet you made comments to them first about being low paid rent-A Cops,Huh Steve?

As far as you and your ?Gun? ,Tell ya what tough guy, If you made a threat like that to me and flashed that thing, I bet you'd find your a*s on the ground and your arm dislocated so quick! And you'd go to jail for ?Brandishing? You can always tell who the unstable, cowardly tough guys are! They always brag to everyone about their ?CW? carry permit and what they will do if!

By the way I am in any way not anti gun, Not a liberal! However its Jerks like Steve who make it bad for the rest of us gun owners! Oh and I do not have, nor do I need a CW Permit.

AUTHOR: Kyle - (U.S.A.)

i chose my battle.this is the lesson learned.idid not try to change your options. i simply stated what happened.big business does not care about consumers,they only care about your dollars.

if you jump through the hoops all is well.question a hoop and see the wrath of defiance.customer relations,employee knowledge,pricing,and convenience do not matter.

as long as they do enough to get by is all that is important.you are considered a thief until you exit the building.

they are a private business owner ,but open to the public.if they want the right to search and seizure ,they must become a membership business subject to their rules.

there were five clothed security guards as stated,not three.the language used obviously will not print since i typed it in and it will not display.i was called a punk asspirin female dog,i had sex with your mother, and i do not work at burger king.these assaults which were within audible range of others, including children,were beyond the limits of professionalism.

if everyone would stand up and refuse ,the police would have numerous violations against home depot , not law abiding consumers.

AUTHOR: Kyle - (U.S.A.)

i chose my battle.this is the lesson learned.idid not try to change your options. i simply stated what happened.big business does not care about consumers,they only care about your dollars.

if you jump through the hoops all is well.question a hoop and see the wrath of defiance.customer relations,employee knowledge,pricing,and convenience do not matter.

as long as they do enough to get by is all that is important.you are considered a thief until you exit the building.

they are a private business owner ,but open to the public.if they want the right to search and seizure ,they must become a membership business subject to their rules.

there were five clothed security guards as stated,not three.the language used obviously will not print since i typed it in and it will not display.i was called a punk asspirin female dog,i had sex with your mother, and i do not work at burger king.these assaults which were within audible range of others, including children,were beyond the limits of professionalism.

if everyone would stand up and refuse ,the police would have numerous violations against home depot , not law abiding consumers.

AUTHOR: Kyle - (U.S.A.)

i chose my battle.this is the lesson learned.idid not try to change your options. i simply stated what happened.big business does not care about consumers,they only care about your dollars.

if you jump through the hoops all is well.question a hoop and see the wrath of defiance.customer relations,employee knowledge,pricing,and convenience do not matter.

as long as they do enough to get by is all that is important.you are considered a thief until you exit the building.

they are a private business owner ,but open to the public.if they want the right to search and seizure ,they must become a membership business subject to their rules.

there were five clothed security guards as stated,not three.the language used obviously will not print since i typed it in and it will not display.i was called a punk asspirin female dog,i had sex with your mother, and i do not work at burger king.these assaults which were within audible range of others, including children,were beyond the limits of professionalism.

if everyone would stand up and refuse ,the police would have numerous violations against home depot , not law abiding consumers.

AUTHOR: Kyle - (U.S.A.)

i chose my battle.this is the lesson learned.idid not try to change your options. i simply stated what happened.big business does not care about consumers,they only care about your dollars.

if you jump through the hoops all is well.question a hoop and see the wrath of defiance.customer relations,employee knowledge,pricing,and convenience do not matter.

as long as they do enough to get by is all that is important.you are considered a thief until you exit the building.

they are a private business owner ,but open to the public.if they want the right to search and seizure ,they must become a membership business subject to their rules.

there were five clothed security guards as stated,not three.the language used obviously will not print since i typed it in and it will not display.i was called a punk asspirin female dog,i had sex with your mother, and i do not work at burger king.these assaults which were within audible range of others, including children,were beyond the limits of professionalism.

if everyone would stand up and refuse ,the police would have numerous violations against home depot , not law abiding consumers.

AUTHOR: D - (U.S.A.)

SUBMITTED: Friday, April 21, 2006

POSTED: Friday, April 21, 2006

In your rebuttal dated 4-21-06 at 09:23:54am YOU said "I never said I would use deadly force on someone attempting to check my reciept." But on 4-19-06 at 9:07:54 YOU STATED THE FOLLOWING "I never show my reciept. This is mainly because I use my Visa debit card for everything and want to make sure I keep track of my reciept. It goes in my wallet at the register and stays there." And then you said this:

"I get right in their face with "what part of NO do you not understand"? Then if they step up on me, I just inform them that I am prepared to use deadly force. Is your job worth dying for?"

If that wasn't meant that you would use deadly force, then what did it mean? I look forward to your explanation on this.

AUTHOR: David - (U.S.A.)

SUBMITTED: Friday, April 21, 2006

POSTED: Friday, April 21, 2006

That's right, the title of my rebuttal is Think People...

Where were you when they asked to see your receipt... on PRIVATE PROPERTY... Their PRIVATE PROPERTY. they have the right to ask to see the receipt, they also have the right to go thru every bag and cart to make sure that you paid for everything with you.

Your refusal can be cause for "alarm" as 99.999% of the people that refuse have something to hide.
If you have something to hide, that's called SHOPLIFTING. As long as you are on their property, and that includes their parking lot, you are required by LAW to follow their rules and regulations. if you refuse they CAN detain you and CAN get the police involved... is it worth it for a 30 second delay to show a receipt?

AUTHOR: Sean - (U.S.A.)

SUBMITTED: Friday, April 21, 2006

POSTED: Friday, April 21, 2006

Here is the law you are talking about:

The Florida law is a self-defense, self-protection law. It has four key components:

-It establishes that law-abiding residents and visitors may legally presume the threat of bodily harm or death from anyone who breaks into a residence or occupied vehicle and may use defensive force, including deadly force, against the intruder.

-In any other place where a person has a right to be, that person has no duty to retreat if attacked and may meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

-In either case, a person using any force permitted by the law is immune from criminal prosecution or civil action and cannot be arrested unless a law enforcement agency determines there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.

-If a civil action is brought and the court finds the defendant to be immune based on the parameters of the law, the defendant will be awarded all costs of defense.

So in conclusion, just because 3 security guards stop you, doesn't mean you have the right to use "deadly force". The courts will not give you reasonable doubt. You're taking a very liberal (not the lefty type) interpretation of this law, and it will end up landing you in prison.

AUTHOR: Steve - (U.S.A.)

SUBMITTED: Friday, April 21, 2006

POSTED: Friday, April 21, 2006

I never said I would use deadly force on someone attempting to check my reciept.

I never said I would brandish my gun as Denny stated.

Here is what the OP said:
"April 16, 2006 5:51 P.M. After patiently waiting in line for over 30 minutes to check out,I went three feet to exit the store and security asked to see my receipt. I replied, "No, not today." He then grabbed two 12 foot boards off my cart and proceeded to tell me he needed to see my receipt.

I then asked him if he was detaining me for shoplifting. He responded, "No sir, I need to see your receipt." I took my lumber from him and put it back and my cart. I responded, "I already told you - it's not going to happen."

I proceeded into the parking lot, and he grabbed the lumber again. I told him to call the police. I informed him that I would have him arrested for detaining me against my will and theft of my property.

He motioned for back-up. My girlfriend and I were repeated harrassed, threatened,and verbal abused as we continued to walk to our vehicle by one of the 5 security guards that were now following us. He called me a "punk-*&* *&*&", "mother-*&*&*" etc. He also told me to go back to my low paying job at Burger King.

I continually told him to call the police to settle the matter. They surrounded us at my truck in the parking lot and continued the harrassment and tried to incite me to begin a physical fight them".

>>>>MY response is to the PHYSICAL ASSAULT that was iminent in the parking lot by the rent-a-cops.

So before all of you experts jump in with nonsense comments, READ exactly what was written.

Those are the facts..Please stick to them.

AND...Before you give advice on FLORIDA law, I suggest you take a minute and read up on it.

AUTHOR: Steve - (U.S.A.)

SUBMITTED: Friday, April 21, 2006

POSTED: Friday, April 21, 2006

Sonya,

I know exactly what the law is. I have a copy of the NEW law right in front of me.

In Florida, you now only have to have a belief that your life is in danger, and you are not required to retreat. You can use deadly force against ANY physical attack now because the LAW now assumes if someone is attacking you they are attempting to kill you.

AUTHOR: Sonya - (U.S.A.)

SUBMITTED: Thursday, April 20, 2006

POSTED: Thursday, April 20, 2006

There is a little thing in the law call excessive force. If you pull a weapon on a receipt check even if it is legal for you to carry, you have become the egressor. And if that weapon would go off, you will be in a world of hurt under the law. And this does not change state by state. It is the law in all 50 states. I would be scare if in Florida hot heads like you carry guns. I am all for the right to protect yourself, but come on, you know that your life is not in danger at the time they puff up and talk trash. You need to learn to calm down or you will have a stroke. And I am not a mambee pambee weenie, I have fired guns, went hunting. Just chill man.

AUTHOR: John - (U.S.A.)

SUBMITTED: Thursday, April 20, 2006

POSTED: Thursday, April 20, 2006

There are many stores that check receipts at the store. If the store is busy there is a chance that the guard did not see the person at the checkout. I can't believe that you would put yourself and your girlfriend through that when it would take 5 seconds for you to show him the receipt and be on your way.

Comply withe the store rules. it was not the security guards fault that you were in line for 30 minutes so why take it out on him.

AUTHOR: Paul - (U.S.A.)

SUBMITTED: Thursday, April 20, 2006

POSTED: Thursday, April 20, 2006

The reason for checking receipts is in store
EMPLOYEE theft among other things.
They X your receipt so you can't go back in and walk out w/something else later on.
The HD here in Quincy Ma. got so much flack on the policy its been elimimated, at least I haven't seen them checking recently.
Its a nice feeling to have just paid and then be made to feel like a thief 6 feet away from the register. Way to go HD and others who do it.

AUTHOR: Nicole - (U.S.A.)

SUBMITTED: Thursday, April 20, 2006

POSTED: Thursday, April 20, 2006

You would KILL someone for checking your reciept? You know, I agreed with you until I read that. That is screwed up. I get you don't like it, fine. But threatening someone is a crime. Especially when its an old lady at WalMart (I've read your posts about them). Would you threaten her life too? Makes me wonder...

Also about tracking your reciept. You don't have to give it to them, you just have to show it to them. Nothing to hide, why worry?

Post the law that says its ILLEGAL for them to require a reciept to leave the store. Seriously, post it.

AUTHOR: Denny - (U.S.A.)

SUBMITTED: Wednesday, April 19, 2006

POSTED: Wednesday, April 19, 2006

The person who checks your recepit is also there to MAKE sure you got everything you bought. Ever thought about that? I nearly walked out of a home depot without a package if it weren't for the attentive door checker to notice that I was missing the spray paint I had bought along with the pallet of lumber and package of nails. She quickly informed the cashier and they brought my spray paint over to me.

And they also make srue that you are WALKING out with items YOU DID pay for.

no principle need to be made. I love that more stores are doing this. It protects the consumer, and hopefully keeps the costs down due to shoplifting.

AUTHOR: Sherri - (U.S.A.)

In the time you spent in this drama, you could have already been out of the door and on your way home. All you had to do is show your receipt..what, five seconds out of your life?

It sounds to me that you were already in a "pissy" mood due to the wait in the checkout, and didn't want to cooperate. It is not a big deal and doesn't cost you a dime. I avoid getting stopped most of the time at Home Depot, as I already have my receipt in my hand. 99% of the time, they see the receipt, tell me to have a nice evening and I'm on my way.

Corporate Advocacy Program: The best way to manage and repair your business reputation. Hiding negative complaints is only a Band-Aid. Consumers want to see how businesses take care of business. All businesses will get complaints. How those businesses take care of those complaints is what separates good businesses from bad businesses.